Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The Rambam begins each collection of halachot by stating the number of mitzvot described in the text. Rabbenu Manoach notes that, in this instance, the number of mitzvot described in these halachot corresponds to the number of chapters in this text.

Whenever the Torah uses the verb לכא (eat) in the context of a mitzvah or a prohibition, it ref ers to the consumption of at least a minimum amount, established by Eruvin 4b as the size of an olive.
It must be emphasized that the measure of a תיזכ (an olive’s size) cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages and this is the subject of debate by the Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive. as one third the size of an egg,הציבכ (a more familiar Talmudic measure). In terms of modern measurements, this olive size would be between 16.6 and 24 grams, according to various Halachic opinions.
Tosefot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines a תיזכ (the size of an olive) as one half the size of an egg (between 25.6 and 36 grams according to the various opinions). With regard to the practical application of the law (halachah l’ma’aseh), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 486) advises that in all questions of Torah law, Tosefot’s opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon.

Eating less than this amount of chametz is also forbidden by Torah law. However, there is no punishment for its consumption, nor need a sacrifice be brought as atonement (See Halachah 7).

Any mixture made from grain or grain products that has come into contact with water and was allowed to become leavened. The following (and only the following) five species are referred to as grain: wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt.

In the mitzvot mentioned above, the Rambam also mentions the prohibition against eating chametz from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan. However, the violation of that prohibition is not punishable by karet.

The prohibition against eating chametz on Pesach is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 197; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 19.

Moed Kattan 28a relates that a person who violated a sin punishable by תדכ would die bef ore reaching the age of fifty.
In his commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6, the Rambam emphasizes that premature death does not represent the totality of the retribution these individuals will receive. In addition, “their souls will be cut off.”
In Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1, the Rambam elaborates on the latter dimension:
The good that is hidden f or the righteous is the life of the world to come... The retribution of the wicked is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die.
This is the intent of the meaning of the term תדכ in the Torah, as [Numbers 15:31] states: “That soul shall surely be cut off.”

The Rambam adds the word “fixed” to indicate that he is referring to the standard sin offering described in Leviticus 4:27-35, in contrast to the offering to atone for certain sins mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 5. (See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3.) The latter offering is not “fixed,” but rather is adjustable according to the financial state of the person liable.

Keritot 2a states that a person who unintentionally commits a transgression f or which one would be liable f or תדכ must bring a sin offering in atonement.

Though the Torah specifically mentions “eating,” Chullin 120a equates drinking a liquid made from chametz and water with the f ormer act. In his responsum (Vol. V, 1517), the Radbaz differentiates between mixing chametz with water (the instance in question here) and mixing chametz with other substances, as mentioned in Halachah 6. The punishment of תרכ applies only when nothing else but chametz and water is contained in the mixture.

As stated in Halachah 9, once chametz becomes forbidden on noon of the f ourteenth of Nisan, we may not derive any benefit from it.

for example, to sell it or use it f or purposes other than eating.

The bracketed additions are based on Rashi’s commentary on Pesachim 21b.

The Rambam’s statements are somewhat problematic. Pesachim 21 b records the f ollowing disagreement between the Sages:
Chizkiyah states: What is the source from which we learn that it is f orbidden to derive benefit from chametz? [Exodus 13:3] states: “Do not eat לכאי ()אל chametz”; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating.
His decision is based on the fact that the T orah uses the expression לכאי.אל Had the Torah not written לכאי,אל we may presume that a prohibition against eating would be implied, but not a prohibition against deriving benefit. This contradicts the opinion of R. Abahu who states: Wherever theTorah states לכאת,אל לכאי אל or רלכאת,אל a prohibition against eating and deriving benefit is implied.
The Rambam’s statements in this Halachah quote the opinion of Chizkiyah. However, in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 8:15, he quotes the opinion of R. Abahu as accepted halachah.
The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining ihat in the halachah at hand, there is no diff erence in law between Chizkiyah and R. Abahu. Theref ore, although the Rambam generally accepts R. Abahu’s opinion, in this instance he quotes Chizkiyah’s statements because the manner in which the latter derives the concept is more explicit.

This prohibition is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah: Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 200; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 20.

This prohibition is counted as one ofthe 613 mitzvot of the Torah: Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 201; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 11.

S’or refers to leavening agents, notably yeast.

Beitzah aד explains that Exodus 13:7 mentions both chametz (leaven), and שער (S’or, a leavening agent) in the same verse to emphasize that they are identical.
The Ra’avad comments that the equation between the prohibitions against chametz and S’ or is not complete. Among the differences between them are: Once chametz is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it is no longer prohibited. In contrast, yeast is never fit to be eaten and is prohibited even in that state. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh do not accept his statements.

this is the punishment given for the active violation of any of the Torah’s prohibitions that are not punishable by death.

The Tzafnat Paneach emphasizes that this law applies only to chametz purchased from a gentile. However, once chametz belonging to a Jew becomes prohibited, that Jew no longer has the authority to sell it. Thus, the purchaser will never really become the legal owner of the chametz (See Rashi, Sukkah 35a; Tosefot, Chullin 4b).
The Or Sameach questions how a person can become liable even for chametz purchased from a gentile, but resolves the issue based on the commentary of Rabbenu Nissim (Avodah Zarah, Chapter 3).

The Mishneh LaMelech raises a significant question: A person is not liable for lashes for violating any prohibition which he can correct by fulfilling a positive commandment קתינה (ואל:)השעל For example, if a person violates the prqhibition against taking both a mother bird and her eggs, he can free himself from the punishment of lashes by sending away the mother bird.
Tosefot (Pesachim 29b) states that the prohibition against chametz being seen in one’s property falls into the above category, because one can correct the violation of this prohibition by fulfilling the positive commandment fo destroy chametz. Thus, it appears that a person can never be held liable for lashes for this transgression.
Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, who explains that Tosefot’s statements apply only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that chametz must be destroyed by burning. However, according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted by the Rambam, Halachah 3:11), who maintain that chametz can be destroyed by any means, not necessarily burning, the prohibition against possessing chametz is not considered a השעל קתינה.ו
What is the essential difference between these opinions: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah to destroy chametz revolves upon the article itself ;)הצפח (it is a mitzvah to destroy chametz. In contrast, the Sages maintain that the mitzvah centers on the person ;)הרבג (he is commanded to remove all chametz from his possession.
According to Rabbi Yehudah, since the commandment revolves around the chametz itself, its destruction directly “corrects” the sin of its possession. In contrast, according to the Sages, the positive commandment of ridding one’s house of chametz is merely a reinforcement of the prohibition against its possession, and the fulfillment of the positive commandment does not have the power to “correct” the violation of the prohibition.

However, should he remove it from his possession (by giving it to another person or declaring it ownerless) before Pesach, he is not liable even if he does not actually destroy the object.

Sh’vuot 21b states: “The transgression of any prohibition which does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashing.”

“Stripes for rebellious conduct” (מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת) is a punishment instituted by the Sages for violation of a Rabbinic prohibition. A person liable for lashing according to Scriptural Law receives a uniform number of 39 lashes unless he is physically incapable of bearing that number. In contrast, the number of lashes given to a person liable for “stripes for rebellious conduct” is left to the discretion of the court.

itself, in contrast to mixtures of chametz, as explained in Halachah 5.

in contrast to a gentile (Pesachim 28a).

This. prohibition applies to all Jews, not only to the owner of the chametz (Rabbenu Nissim, Pesachim 28). Thus, it is prohibited to buy chametz from a store owned by a Jew who did not observe the prohibition against possessing chametz on Pesach.

Pesachim 29a mentions Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion that the prahibition stems from the Torah itself. However, this opinion is not accepted as halachah.
The Tzafnat Paneach explains that the debate between Rabbi Y ehudah and Rabbi Shimon (who maintains that the Torah does not forbid ·benefiting from chametz after Pesach) revolves around an abstract concept. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that once Pesach comes, chametz itself becomes forbidden and, therefore, can never become permitted again. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the prohibition does not affect the essence of the chametz itself. Thus, we are forbidden to benefit from it during Pesach, but after Pesach there is no prohibition.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the prohibition against using a Jew’s chametz after Pesach applies even when the prohibitions against possessing chametz are not violated. See Halachah 4:5.

e.g., he forgot that he possessed it.

The Nodah B’Yhudah (Orach Chayim 20) gives an example of such a case. A thief stole chametz from a person before Pesach and returned it to him after the holiday. Even though the person had no opportunity to destroy it before Pesach, it is forbidden.

intentionally

on the pretense that he had f orgotten about its existence.

Rabbenu Asher and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol maintain that this principle does not apply until the holiday itself actually begins. Thus, even if chametz became mixed with other substances on the f ourteenth of Nisan, after the time chametz is f orbidden, the mixture is bound by the laws regarding the nullification of forbidden objects םירוסיא ()לוטיב that apply throughout the entire year.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that a simple interpretation of the Rambam’s statements leads to the conclusion that he accepts this opinion. Though others, among them the Maggid Mishneh, do not accept this view, it is accepted as Halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 447:2).

Ordinarily, it is permissible to use a mixture of a prohibited substance and a permitted substance provided that the permitted substance is present in a greater amount, to the extent that the prohibition is nullified ררםיא(.)ל

When the prohibited substance is of the same kind as the forbidden substance (e.g., improperly slaughtered meat mixed with properly slaughtered meat), all that is required to nullify the prohibition is that the permitted substance constitutes the majority of the mixture (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 15:1).

When the prohibited substance is of a different kind from the permitted (e.g., forbidden fats mixed with grain), the prohibition is ordinarily nullified if the taste of the forbidden article is not discernible, or the quantity of the permitted substance is at least 60 times as great as the forbidden article (ibid. 15:1, 6).

The above principles do not apply with regard to chametz on Pesach. Even the slightest mixture of chametz may not be eaten, nor may benefit be derived from it. In Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot (15:9), the Rambam explains that this stringency is instituted because chametz is a ןיריתמ רל שיש רבד (a substance which later will become permitted).
A ןיריתמ רל שיש רבד which becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of its own kind is never permitted to be used because of the f ollowing rationale: Since its use in its entirety will later become permitted, there is no need to grant a leniency allowing it to be eaten when forbidden.
Similarly, with regard to chametz on Pesach: There is no prohibition against using a mixture of chametz after Pesach. Hence, there is no need to grant permission to eat such a mixture on Pesach itself, even though the quantity of the permitted substance far surpasses that of the chametz.
Furthermore, there is a stricter dimension to chametz than to any other רל שיש רבד.ןיריתמ Generally, a ןיריתמ ול שיש רבד is permitted if it becomes mixed with a substance of another kind to the extent that its taste can no longer be discerned. However, this leniency is not granted regarding mixtures of chametz. Since Exodus 12:20 states: “You must not eat any leaven,” the severity of the prohibition obligates additional stringency.

for example, a dough containing yeast mixed with flour.

for example, a mixture of flour with any other substance.

The Ma’aseh Rokeach explains that this leniency applies whether the mixture occurred after Pesach or on the holiday itself. Nevertheless, the latter point should not be misinterpreted. Should such a mixture be discovered on Pesach, we are obligated to destroy it (Ramah, Orach Chayim 447:1). Nevertheless, if either intentionally or unintentionally, the mixture was not destroyed on the holiday itself, it may be used afterwards.

Pesachim 30a explains that since the penalty is of Rabbinic origin, it was applied only to chametz itself and not to mixtures.

as stated in Halachah 1

A mixture including sour milk, moldy bread crusts, and mineral salts (Pesachim 42a).

beer made of fermented barley, as our beer. Generally, the beer referred to in the Talmud was made from fermented dates (Rashi, Pesachim 42b).

Pesachim 42a also emphasizes that a person transgresses the commandments against possessing chametz if he owns any of the above mixtures.

different from eating chametz itself

The Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 198) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 12) consider this as one of the orah’s 613 commandments.
Nevertheless, this decision is a matter of debate among the commentators. The_ Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) does not accept the Rambam’s view, and explains that a person who consumes an olive size of chametz within the specific time period םרפ (תליכא) ידכ described below should be liable for תרכ as described in Halachah 1. See also Halachah 4:8 and commentary.
The Maggid Mishneh supports the Ramban’s view, noting that in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 15:3, the Rambam himself explains that any person who eats a mixture containing an olive size of a forbidden food within this time period is liable, just as if he had eaten the forbidden food itself.
Based on the explanation of the Tur (Orach Chayim 442), the Drisha and the Pri Chadash interpret the Rambam as ref erring to a mixture to which the chametz does not impart any flavor and is added only for consistency and color.
The Tzafnat Paneach off ers a different interpretation, explaining that were chametz to be mixed with other foods, a person eating the mixture would be liable for תרכ as the Ramban states. However, the Rambam is talking about an instance when flour was mixed with another substance and became leavened as part of the mixture, without ever becoming a distinct entity of its own. The Torah considers this as a different category of chametz and holds a person who eats it liable for a lesser punishment.

It must be emphasized that the measure of a כְּזַיִת (an olive’s size) cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages and this is the subject of debate by the Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive as one third the size of an egg (כַּבֵּיצָה, a more familiar Talmudic measure). In terms of modern measurements, this olive size would be between 16.6 and 24 grams, according to various Halachic opinions. Tosafot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines a כְּזַיִת (the size of an olive) as one half the size of an egg (between 25.6 and 36 grams according to the various opinions). With regard to the practical application of the law (halachah l’ma’aseh), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 486) advises that in all questions of Scriptural Law, Tosafot’s opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon. Eating less than this amount of chametz is also forbidden by Scriptural Law. However, there is no punishment for its consumption, nor need a sacrifice be brought as atonement (see Halachah 7).

In converting this figure to modern measures of time, there is also a difference of opinion. The shortest opinion limits this period to two minutes. The most commonly accepted view is four minutes and there are opinions of seven and eight minutes as well.

as explained above.

for as explained in the previous halachah, chametz can never be nullified within a mixture. As the f ollowing halachah explains, eating less than an olive size of chametz is also prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless,

see Halachah 3.

The laws regarding mixtures of chametz were mentioned in the previous halachah.

The commentaries cite the source for the Rambam’s decision as Yoma 73b, which mentions Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion that all the Torah’s prohibitions against eating apply even when one consumes less than the size of an olive רועיש(,)יצח that measure being significant only as regards punishment.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam cites this verse. Yoma (ibid.) derives the prohibition against eating less than an olive size of prohibited substances from another source.
The Radbaz (Responsa, Vol. V, 143) explains that the prohibition against יצחרועיש exists only when eating the prohibited substance itself. In contrast, רועיש יצח. of chametz is forbidden even when mixed with other substances, as explained in the previous halachah. He explains that since deriving benefit from chametz is forbidden according to Torah law, that prohibition also includes eating רועיש יצח in any form.

as stated in Halachah 1.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam begins the halachah by describing the prohibition against “even the slightest amount” of chametz, and concludes with the expression “less than the size of an olive.”

Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 8:16 states that anyone who benefits from forbidden substances receives “stripes for being rebellious.” A person who eats less than the size of an olive of chametz also benefits, and hence is liable for this punishment

The Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 199) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 485) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ramban and the Ra’avad take issue with this point, explaining that from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan until the beginning of the fifteenth at nightf all, there is a positive commandment to rid one’s house of chametz, but no negative command forbidding the possession or eating of chametz.

The intent of this expression is midday. However, in particular, the term needs elaboration: According to Torah law, a day begins at dawn רחשה(,)תולע the appearance of the first rays of sun, and ends when three stars appear םיבכוכה(,תאצ Berachot 2b). This period is divided into 12 and the resulting figure is referred to as one seasonal hour תינמז(.)העש [Other opinions consider the period to be divided into twelve as beginning at the appearance of the sun, המחה,ץנ and ending at sunset.]
Thus, if dawn were at 5:09 AM and three stars appeared at 6:45 PM, each seasonal hour would be an hour and eight minutes, and the beginning of the seventh hour would be 11:57 AM.

The Rambam explicitly states that lashes are never given for violating prohibitions against benefiting from forbidden articles (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 8:16). The Mishneh Lamelech (Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah 5:8) elaborates on this principle in detail.

as opposed to the punishment of תרכ for eating chametz within Pesach, as described in Halachah 1.

Pesachim 5a

The Paschal sacrifice could be offered from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan until sunset (Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:1).

This is one of the Rabbinic commandments instituted as a “fence” and safeguard to Torah law.

This is also a “seasonal hour.” Thus, if as stated above, dawn of the fourteenth of Nisan is 5:09 AM and three stars appear at 6:45 PM, the beginning of the sixth hour is 10:49.

as stated in the previous halachah.

in the instance stated above from 9:41 until 10:49.

ln his commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:4), the Rambam explains that it is possible that a person may err in his estimation of the time by an hour and thus, transgress the Rabbinic prohibition against possessing chametz at the sixth hour.
In a Responsa, the Rambam replies to the following question: The passage in Pesachim which is the source for this halachah appears to imply that a person may make an error of over two hours. Indeed, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi states the matter as such in his halachot. If so, why did the Rambam alter the explanation of the law.
In a reply which reflects his overall purpose in the composition of the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam answers:
1 mentioned a mistake of an hour which is a common error because my intention
in composing this text is to bring the matters closer to our understanding or what
is general practice.

Since the restriction against benefiting from chametz during the sixth hour is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages did not feel it necessary to forbid benefiting from chametz for another hour because of the mere possibility of error.

A portion of grain given to the priests.

A thanksgiving offering involves 40 loaves, ten of which are leavened (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:17-18).

The Torah refers to Terumah as שדק (sanctified). Similarly, the breads of the thanksgiving offering have a sacrificial status. Therefore,

for the Sages did not desire to relax their prohibition against eating chametz. Nevertheless, the priests were allowed to benefit from chametz during this period, and hence could feed Terumah to their animals.

for it is forbidden to destroy sacred articles unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, Pesachim 13b explains that thanksgiving offerings were not brought on the fourteenth of Nisan. [This law is also relevant at present. From the fourteenth of Nisan until the conclusion of Pesach, the “Psalm of Thanksgiving” is omitted from the morning service.]

because of the Rabbinic prohibition mentioned above. As explained in Halachah 3:11, generally, chametz can be destroyed by other means as well. However, this halachah deals with bread brought as sacrifices; hence, it is proper that they be burned (Rabbenu Manoach).

as explained in the previous halachah.

Thus, during this time, a person may sell his chametz to gentiles or feed it to his animals.

The punishment given for transgressing a Rabbinic commandment. The Lechem Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not prescribe a punishment for a person who breaks the Rabbinic decree against eating chametz during the fifth hour.
The Tzafnat Paneach (Responsum 83) also differentiates between the fifth and sixth hours, calling the former, a Rabbinic safeguard, and the latter, a Rabbinic prohibition.

With regard to the prohibition against benefiting from chametz, see commentary, Halachah 8.

as explained in Halachah 8·.